3 ms·

This is the argument that Trump voters knew he was likely a con, but at least he was paying lip service. This is belied by the continued support since when he h

This is the argument that Trump voters knew he was likely a con, but at least he was paying lip service. This is belied by the continued support since when he has done the exact opposite of what he said. He's revealed himself to be that con and yet his voters still enthusiastically support him. No, Occam's razor: this is just tribalism. He's convinced them that he is on their side reality be damned. It is too painful and hopeless to countenance the other.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> This is the argument that Trump voters knew he was likely a con, but at least he was paying lip service. This is belied by the continued support since when he has done the exact opposite of what he said. “Continued support”? No, Trump's seen a significant decline in support since taking office. > He's revealed himself to be that con and yet his voters still enthusiastically support him. No, again, in fact, the decline in his strong support in polling has been more rapid than the decline in his overall support.
- throwanem 9y ago
  A lot of it, too, is that regardless of one's private doubts, it's considered preferable to present a united front to a potentially hostile interlocutor. I tend to think that the Republican base is better at this, at least in the last decade or two, than the Democratic; for all the infighting one observes among the GOP establishment, GOP voters tend to back their man pretty firmly, at least in public.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
throwanem 9y ago
> He's convinced them that he is on their side reality be damned. It is too painful and hopeless to countenance the other. That sounds less like tribalism than like desperation to me. And in any case, what difference does it make? Either way, it boils down to a stark choice: on the one hand, the Democratic Party may work out how to offer a credible alternative to Trump - more accurately, to whoever comes after Trump, and will no doubt be to Trump as Trump to Bush - and on the other hand, the Democratic Party may watch impotently as events continue more or less as they have done.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> This is the argument that Trump voters knew he was likely a con, but at least he was paying lip service. This is belied by the continued support since when he has done the exact opposite of what he said. “Continued support”? No, Trump's seen a significant decline in support since taking office. > He's revealed himself to be that con and yet his voters still enthusiastically support him. No, again, in fact, the decline in his strong support in polling has been more rapid than the decline in his overall support.

throwanem 9y ago
A lot of it, too, is that regardless of one's private doubts, it's considered preferable to present a united front to a potentially hostile interlocutor. I tend to think that the Republican base is better at this, at least in the last decade or two, than the Democratic; for all the infighting one observes among the GOP establishment, GOP voters tend to back their man pretty firmly, at least in public.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

throwanem 9y ago

> He's convinced them that he is on their side reality be damned. It is too painful and hopeless to countenance the other. That sounds less like tribalism than like desperation to me. And in any case, what difference does it make? Either way, it boils down to a stark choice: on the one hand, the Democratic Party may work out how to offer a credible alternative to Trump - more accurately, to whoever comes after Trump, and will no doubt be to Trump as Trump to Bush - and on the other hand, the Democratic Party may watch impotently as events continue more or less as they have done.